Hey, remember a few weeks ago, when we were all outraged at the Obama administration’s decision to try Gitmo detainees in New York courts, rather than holding military trials for the self-confessed 9/11 mastermind and his minions? Whatever happened to that? Why has it died out of the news?

In fact, why aren’t we seeing blog posts and articles and, well, videos like this one?

“The people held at Guantanamo Bay are not crewing the weapons in this war; they are the weapons in this war. They are independently operating, constantly evolving, high-level weapons systems that understand our weaknesses — like our civilian air traffic system — and they have dedicated their lives to killing as many of us as they possibly can.

“We have an obligation to understand everything we can about these weapons: where they come from; how they were made; who put them together; where they were aimed; how they were triggered; and most importantly, what are their weaknesses and blind spots, so that we can most effectively defend against them in the future.”

I stumbled upon this diagram (from Great Britain’s National Health Service) on the BBC news site. Check the site out, please. Am I missing something? I read and re-read the article and could find no reference to the numbers – only those on the picture. And they certainly don’t jive with the numbered list below Mr. Skinned.

Point #1 clearly aligns with the #1 symptoms listed below the figure: whole body | high temperature, tiredness and lowered immunity. Point #2, ditto. #3 location is the stomach: this is where you get a sore throat? I don’t think so. And it just goes downhill from there.

So what am I missing?

If by some wild coincidence I’m not missing anything and the chart is messed up, what does that say about an industrialized country’s nationalized system of medicine? (And yes, I know that the folks across the pond can differentiate between the throat and the stomach. And I also understand that they can count!) But my point holds… Who signed off on this? Who released it to the press? Was this a joke, or an act of complete and utter incompetence (and if the latter, what does that say about the NHS)?

As I said, it must be me. But then again, google on the following and read the first half-dozen hits: “great britain” NHS… Say no more. Say no more!

Well, only in one small part, actually. The vast majority of his superb column on NRO today is absolutely spot on. The current health reform bill is indeed “irredeemable” and…

“…it wildly compounds the complexity by adding hundreds of new provisions, regulations, mandates, committees, and other arbitrary bureaucratic inventions.

Worse, they are packed into a monstrous package without any regard to each other. The only thing linking these changes — such as the 118 new boards, commissions, and programs — is political expediency. Each must be able to garner just enough votes to pass. There is not even a pretense of a unifying vision or conceptual harmony.”

But: Mr. Krauthammer makes one small but very important statement with which I disagree. He begins the end of his column with this statement:

“Insuring the uninsured is a moral imperative.”

Is it? Why?

If insuring the uninsured is a moral imperative, why isn’t ensuring food for those who can’t afford it also a moral imperative? After all, people can die from starvation, whereas a cold, fever, or flu may bring you down for a while, but it generally won’t kill you.

What about homes? Homeless people die of exposure; why not make homes for all a moral imperative as well?

No, the moral imperative is to make sure that the uninsured have access to the healthcare they need. But mandating that for-profit insurance companies must cover them is akin to mandating that grocery stores must give away groceries for free to the hungry; or that banks must give home loans to those who cannot afford to pay mortgages. Oh wait, we all saw how well that worked out, didn’t we?

Making sure that those who cannot afford healthcare coverage have access to good healthcare may in fact be a moral imperative. Insuring the uninsured whether they want it or not, whether they can afford it or not, whether the insurance companies want to or not, is most decidedly not a moral imperative.

Think about this: There is only one reason, one group, one entity that saves the image above from the scrap heap of the historically laughable and horrifically ridiculous. No matter what your religion or ethnicity, only one small slice of humanity saved your tail section, especially in America, from being on the endangered list. Given recent (and sometimes not so recent) history, virtually every ethnic, racial, political, and religious segment of the global village has found refuge in the silent arms of the United States Military. Doubt it? If the Nazis had had their way, all Jews, gays, blacks, Native Americans, and in general non-Aryan would be dead… Between the early and late 1900s (not to mention the Marshall Plan in between), Europe would probably still be a smoldering ruins. What would have happened to China if we acquiesced and gave the Japanese the petroleum they so desperately wanted to continue their vicious expansionism in 1941? What of South Korea? The Philippines? What of the USSR?

In short, where would this world be without the United States Marine Corp, the United States Army, the United States Navy, the United States Air Force, and the United States Coast Guard?

Well, we wouldn’t be eating turkey.

So today whether you are with family or friends, eating a feast or serving a feast, please remember our servicemen and women as you give thanks for all the blessings this great country has bestowed upon us all.

“Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.”

It should come as no surprise, but at least now it’s officially documented. From Fox News:

The federal government spent $3.5 trillion during President Obama’s first year in office. This far exceeds the spending for any other first-year president.

This is double what George Bush spent on his first year in office and light years ahead of all previous Presidents… even when adjusted for inflation.

In fairness, this includes the final 3.5 months George Bush was President and, therefore, includes the TARP bailout which was Bush’s blunder.

That still leaves close to $3 Trillion – with a “t” – spent by the President and what Nancy Pelosi described as “the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history,” as they proceeded to shove through (in the middle of the night and week-end) a stimulus bill packed with more pork than you’ll find at Honeybaked Ham’s Headquarters.

As the President’s On-The-Job Training proceeded, he continued to act as if the way out of a recession is to spend more money that we don’t have. Maybe after his visit to China, he will have a better idea what we’re facing a couple of years down the road: An economic Tsunami he won’t be able to lay at the feet of George W. Bush.

We here at Grand Rants are frequently critical of the President’s policies, and for good reason. We have also had occasion to pick on the First Lady as well. But when either one of them does things right, we like to point out those instances as well.

Last night, Michelle Obama appeared every inch a First Lady the entire country could applaud. No dowdy red-and-black disaster dress, no unflattering dear-Lord-what-the-heck-is-that-outfit?moment.

She was drop-dead gorgous. Elegant. Stately. And just beautiful. Not only that, she actually appeared to be having a good time. She also looked as though she felt at ease with herself. That geeky fellow beside her looks like a sophomore nerd in his first tux who can’t believe the homecoming queen is his date.

For all I know the state dinner itself may have been a howling disaster, or a smashing success. The Indian Prime Minister and his wife may have stormed off in a huff after the first course, or they all might have stayed up dancing until dawn. Doesn’t matter for this moment. Doesn’t matter at all.

There’s an old saying I just made up: “Don’t judge the message by the messenger. Judge the message on its actual content.”

When I first heard that saying (about two minutes ago), it came to me as I was watching the youtube videos of Glenn Beck’s rally last week-end held at “The Villages” here in Florida.

I had intended on driving up to see him in person, but a prior committment kept me from doing so. However, one of the principals of our local 912 Group was there and thoughtfully taped Glenn’s speech in its entirety. I present it to you in segments below.

Before watching, however, please allow me to make a couple of points:

Beck’s Flair For Theatrics

Upon first viewing, it would be easy to compare the theatrics of Beck’s presentations to any number of egocentric “look at ME!” performers, so full of themselves you simply want to run screaming in the other direction.

Only when you know Beck’s “back story” does one understand that what you’re actually watching is a man who has been to the gates of hell and clawed his way back.

It may be difficult to get it at first, but what you are seeing is not so much theatrics, but the true, “my right hand to God” passion of a man who looked at death (by his own doing) in the face before experiencing his own personal epiphany. That epiphany gave him the strength to say, “No! There’s something better in store for me. Let that journey be my journey of choice.” Understand, this man speaks his heart straight from the hip… and his shirt sleeve.

I wanted to ask Glenn one simple question (and if I get the chance, I will): “Glenn, if you had not plummeted to the depths you did, do you think you would have found the courage, the strength and the clarity of vision needed to get to where you are now?” Because, make no mistake folks. Beck puts his life on the line every day. When he uncovers corruption, he exposes it. When he knows who is behind some nefarious abuse of power, he names names. Not because he is trying to be a big shot, but because he has been to hell and back and he knows, there is right and there is wrong. And if you don’t have the guts to stand up against what’s wrong, those who stand up for wrong will always win.

The Wrong People Are Winning Because We Let Them

The wrong people have been “winning” in this country for too long. But, it’s primarily because those of us who know what’s right have been too comfortable in our barcaloungers and designer fashions to stand up and confront them. We didn’t want to spill our lattes. We’ve been more concerned with political correctness than the truth.